[ausmoose]

Ok, so I've only got one lens at the moment (18-135) and would like to get another one/some more. I'm on a very tight budget so can't get anything fancy, and the M series seems to suit my needs since it seems you can get them fairly cheap second hand.

I'd like:

A macro lens
A landscape lens (yeah I'm kidding myself these are way too expensive)
A portrait lens
A wildlife lens (kidding myself again since these are SUPER expensive, but it would be nice)

So, any recommendations for good, cheap lenses and where I can buy them from? Australia has less options than somewhere like the US, but I've searched a little on the forums buying area and on eBay Australia. Are there any really amazing M lenses that people can recommend for me? Doesn't really matter if they don't really fit the above categories (which are pretty much the whole range anyway). Thanks SO much

[gazonk]

So, any recommendations for good, cheap lenses and where I can buy them from? Australia has less options than somewhere like the US, but I've searched a little on the forums buying area and on eBay Australia. Are there any really amazing M lenses that people can recommend for me? Doesn't really matter if they don't really fit the above categories (which are pretty much the whole range anyway). Thanks SO much

For portraits: Try the M-50/1.7 I have two of those. These are easy to find and cheap - they were once kit lenses of e.g. MX. Wonderful lenses.
For macro: The M-50/4 is usually the cheapest. I bought one for my son as a Christmas present. It's a small and light lens, and very sharp, also at infinity. It does require a LOT of light though.
For landscape: Which focal length were you thinking of?

[manacho2005]

+1 on the M50 f1.7, and you can get cheap tubes or a reversing filter to turn that same lens into a macro...
For landscape, check offerings from samyang/rokinon 8,14,16 mm.
For wildlife on a budget, watch ebay for sigma/tamron 70-300's.

[gazonk]

+1 on the M50 f1.7, and you can get cheap tubes or a reversing filter to turn that same lens into a macro...

Yes, that's a good idea. I've used M50/1.7 a lot with extension tubes - here's an example:

[boriscleto]

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/54-pentax-lens-articles/152336-cheap-macr...lose-work.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/74221-raynox-macro-club.html

The DA L 55-300/4-5.8 won't break the bank and is an adequate wildlife lens. It even works well with the cheap Vivitar Series 1 1.4x tele-converter.

[Dr Orloff]

I'd like:

A macro lens
A landscape lens (yeah I'm kidding myself these are way too expensive)
A portrait lens
A wildlife lens (kidding myself again since these are SUPER expensive, but it would be nice)

For landscape M28mm f3.5 or Sigma Superwide 24mm. Stitch for wider.

You may as well get an M50/1.7 as you can find them for next to nothing. Or the K55/1.8, one of my favourites.

For macro, use one of the above, reverse for higher mag options.

The Tamron SP90macro is also a good option for larger macro subjects. 1:2 macro and a very good portrait lens.

Long telephoto is more difficult on a budget.

[Sagitta]

My recommendation for a budget long tele would be the Sigma 70-300, in pretty much any of its incarnations. You can get one used cheap, or new for about $200. It's not the best, but it works and works pretty well for what it is.

If you can spare the extra, go for the APO version.

Don't be too scared by the reviews here in the database - its a case of people buying a budget lens and expecting results from a lens 10 times its price and then lowballing the review scores when they don't get magic out of the box from it.

If you want to stay in the 'M' / manual focus range for lenses for a tele, you could consider one of the umpteen gazillion 75-200/80-200/70-300/et al lenses out there and then picking up a teleconverter for if you want to go past the 200/300mm upper end of said lenses.

Speaking of teleconverters.... one trick you can do is get a teleconverter (quality doesn't matter here since you'll be butchering it anyway) and then taking the glass out. You'll wind up with a cheap extension tube for your macro stuff if you go that route.

[GibbyTheMole]

I have around 15 or so lenses, but, if you want high image quality for very little $$$, I'd look for a Tamron SP model 23A 60-300mm zoom for macro, portrait, and moderately-long tele wildlife use. The image quality is excellent on this one, equal to a Pentax DA 55-300 (which I also have) but it's all-manual, so it's cheap. Expect to spend $40-$60 for one. If it doesn't come with the PK adaptall mount for Pentax, you can get one for about $10-$15. The Tamron also has a very good true macro mode with up to 1:1.55x magnification. Not too shabby. This lens is about as close to a good "Swiss-Army-Knife" of a lens as you can get, IMO.

That leaves landscapes... That's tough on a budget with APS-C. I have a very sharp and all-around excellent Ricoh Rikenon XR 2.8 / 28mm manual focus prime I paid $20 for, but it's equivalent to 45mm on APS-C, which might not be wide enough for you. Otherwise, it's a corker of a lens.

So theoretically for around $100 (or less) you could cover everything on your list. Or if your 18-135 is good in the wide angle range, maybe you could do without the landscape lens for awhile & save some coin.

Good luck,
Bob

[normhead]

A macro lens
A landscape lens (yeah I'm kidding myself these are way too expensive)
A portrait lens
A wildlife lens (kidding myself again since these are SUPER expensive, but it would be nice)

The Sigma 70-300 could be almost everything you want.

Macro, from 200-300mm, for butterflies etc, you have the advantage of focussing from 7 feet away, so you have a chance of not scaring the insect.
It's very strong from 70-about to 150mm, weaker at the long end, but fine if you use it close up. It doesn't really look soft until you start focusing on things a the infinity setting.

Your 18-135 is super at 24 mm... used from 22-40m it should be all you need, for landscape.

Given the cheap part, that's what I'd look for...


A few Sigma 70-300 images.

This image is softer than my Sigma 70 macro, or Tamron 90 macro, but it's like an added feature on a cheap lens so who should complain?








My first few years of digital photography, it was my goto lens, and it does most of what you want. The downside is, it's not a lens you'll use much once you get better glass.

Starting with the 18-135 the logical place to go would be to something like the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 2.8, but those are a lot more money. I've seen Sigma 70-300s for under $100 second hand, and under $200 new.

(A few more images here.. )

[Sagitta]

Only caveat about the 70-300 is its pretty huge. I loved mine to death (literally) but after a bit of use you definitely know you have it on the camera due to the sheer size. Then again, you won't really find anything else at that size of a zoom that's not huge either.

[rbefly]

Hello ausmoose,
Some great recommendations so far, the M 50mm f/1.7 is a no-brainer, everyone should own this lens. I also will throw in a vote for the K 55mm f/1.8 for a slightly different rendering and look.
If you really enjoy macro, another suggestion is the M 100mm f/4.0. In the US, they're about $100-$150 and fairly easy to find. A great 'starter' macro lens.
I believe Norm's right about the 18-135mm being useful in the 'Landscape' application, the photos I've seen posted in the 20-28mm range look very good, especially stopped down slightly. Other choices would be the Sigma, Miranda or Kiron 24mm primes, you might try a dedicated search on eBay for 24mm Pentax or 'K' mount.
I'll leave the wildlife and telephoto recommendations to those more well-informed, seems like there's quite a few budget options. I will say that, having owned several zooms with a macro mode, once I tried a dedicated macro lens (the M 100mm, my first macro), there's no going back! Unless the zoom/macro lens is the only one you have at the time, a true macro lens is the best.
Good luck!
Ron

[Sagitta]

I made the same suggestion in another thread, but if you're going for 'pictures of little things' rather than 'lets count the hairs on a fly's legs' you may be better off buying a pocket camera that supports a macro mode. You can grab a RAW supported camera for around $150 to $200 (more if the budget allows) and you'd find being able to 'get in' and shoot your subjects a hell of a lot easier than you would with your DSLR.

[Driline]

I can't believe no one mentioned the F 35-70 Macro zoom. For Under $40 it's sharp, fast auto focus, and fun to use. Check out the review here. SMC Pentax-F 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 Reviews - F Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[6BQ5]

+1 on Driline's recommendation. It was recommended in another thread here. The F and FA line are greatly underestimated lenses. I find the majority of them to be very sharp and very affordable. Yes, there are some stinkers out there, like anything in life. While I'm at it, let me re-recommend the F 28-80mm f/3.5-4.5.

[ausmoose]

Wow! A lot more responses than I was expecting, just overnight! (for me) Thanks to everyone for your suggestions and sample photos - I read through your posts now and I'll look at them more closely later and see what I want. Looks like there's a lot of choice, and thanks for narrowing down my choices slightly. Gazonk - the focal length I'd like would be about 15 maybe? Yes I really want to DA 15ltd but it's way beyond my price range so I'll have to save that one until I have a bigger budget.

Thanks again for some awesome responses! Really appreciate it